Protestor with gun,

nyiangelo · Aug 11, 2009

Well lets not turn this thread into a flame thrower. What do you think? I believe he was within his rights to carry that gun. He observed all laws. I'm glad he exercised his rights. However I disagree with his sign. Thus puts what could have been a good image on the 2nd amendment. to a bad one. What do yall think? Be nice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/protester-with-gun-found_n_256614.html

stefen · Aug 11, 2009

Just because he did not agree with the politics or the agenda of OBama, does not mean that he must give up his rights...although, that's next :coffee2:

SomeGuy · Aug 11, 2009

I am a strong supporter of all the rights delineated in the Constitution, even the oft ignored 9th and 10th amendments, but I consider his declaration that now is the time to water the tree of liberty [ with the blood of patriots and of tyrants] to be a direct call for, and incitement of, violent revolution, and an overt threat against the POTUS. The Secret Service had cause to arrest him.

GPURS · Aug 11, 2009

Not sure what the big deal is :dontknow:

? A lawfull citizen with his legal sidearm on private property :icon_scratch:

... Why should this be such a news story? This man is far less dangerous than the Kenyan with such lofty ideas ::)

.... Aaaahh, change.. Good luck, Gpurs..

mojjax · Aug 11, 2009

I personally would never bring a gun to an event like this . Look what happened to Joe The Plumber , he didn't even have a gun .

Smee · Aug 11, 2009

I just had to laugh at the headline after the story:

"What will it take for the president to have a good fall?"

Banana peel

? Doesn't anyone proofread these things?

Tank69 · Aug 11, 2009

I dont see what the big deal is ,he was doing nothing illegal ,even the police said he was doing nothing wrong .

it amazes me if you live in a state where you can legaly carry a concealed firearm with a liscense nobody would know or care if somebody was carrying a pistol.

if you live in a state where you can carry a firearm but it has to be out in the open very few notice them but when they do they act like theres going to be a shoot out at any minute.

BuckleBoy · Aug 12, 2009

stefen said:
Just because he did not agree with the politics or the agenda of OBama, does not mean that he must give up his rights...although, that's next

But it also doesn't mean that he has to bring a weapon to a presidential address just because he can. :wink:

Sure, he is within his rights. But if he'd stopped to think about the statement he was trying to make (be it revolution, gun control, or whatever), then he'd maybe have realized that he was making the opposite statement.

For folks who want to Keep their rights to bear arms, this is no way to act.

When people push the limits of their legal rights, those rights have a tendency get restricted.

-Buck

mikeofaustin · Aug 12, 2009

Personally, the law says he didn't do anything wrong. And if I were the presedent, I would go up to him a shake his hand for simply being an american. Not that it had anything to do with him having a gun, but for being there for exercising his rights to be an American.

AU24K · Aug 12, 2009

I believe that the guy was trying to get arrested or "roughed up" by Obammy's henchmen possibly to initiate a Federal lawsuit for violation of his 2nd amendment rights.
Regardless of whether he is within his rights or not, his actions are counterproductive to his message. Just because you are allowed a certain activity, you must weigh that against the "big picture". I think the man acted a fool and has hurt his position and ideology. If you want to fight, choose your battles carefully. The word "discretion" comes to mind....
Scott

PS. Message to guy with gun: if you file a federal lawsuit and it goes before the Supreme Court, what cha think will be the result? Hint: Sotomayer.

silvercop · Aug 12, 2009

he was within his rights. if more law abiding citizens carried guns i think the crime rate would go down, at least everyone would be on a level playing field.

Tubecity · Aug 15, 2009

There was an incident here, near Pittsburgh where a citizen was arrested near an area where Obama
wa speaking. He won the case as open carry is permitted in Pa. as long as you are not a felon. And
you don't need a 'concealed weapons permit' to open carry, you can walk down the street with your
sidearm on your hip. In many cases, it is the LEO's, (law enforcement officers) that need to be made
aware that this is legal. While I do have a permit to carry & at times do carry a .45, I am of the mindset
that I see no reason to let anyone know I am armed. But I may attend one of their open carry gatherings
where they usually have a large number of men & women that go out to dinner & carry openly. They do
have that option to exercise their rights.

Produce Guy · Aug 15, 2009

Well at least he wasn't smoking!!

mrs.oroblanco · Aug 17, 2009

I think it is one giant step forward.

He was doing something guaranteed by our constitution (and I see no reason why the SS - secret service, not Schutzstaffel, should not have been watching him - that IS their job, isn't it?),

He was doing it legally, according to the law of the constitution, and the state, and the owner of the property -

Hey, a year ago, you couldn't even wear the wrong T-shirt to listen to the President speak, now you can bring a gun!!!!!!!!

B

Tubecity · Aug 17, 2009

He was doing it legally, according to the law of the constitution, and the state, and the owner of the property
====================================================================
Yes maam & I agree. There is a fairly large group & growing , of people here in south-western Pa. that are
carrying openly. Shopping at Wal-Marts, grocery stores , malls & even going out to dinner. They are polite
if questioned by police officers & at times have had to explain or provide proof of the Pa. state open carry
laws to the police chiefs or to the municipal offices. Like I said, a 'concealed weapons permit' is NOT needed
to openly carry. But you must comply with the wishes of those private owners who ask you not to carry. It's
a private property issue. And, unless you have a permit to carry concealed, you must unload your weapon &
keep the ammo & gun separate when entering your vehicle. If harassed or arrested for simply carrying a
weapon non-threatingly, you can bring suit against them. Of course in secure airport areas, courthouses &
1st class cities (Philly), there are exceptions.

mrs.oroblanco · Aug 18, 2009

TC,

Same here and its the same way in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre airport (Avoca) - and the courthouses. I think most of Pa is like that, and I am pretty sure western South Dakota is also. (some of the eastern part, has a different attitude).

B

Saturna · Aug 18, 2009

Just out of interest, what about long guns? Do the open carry laws refer only to handguns?

What if the guy wanted to make the same statement with a rifle with a scope slung over his shoulder?

Jay

blurr · Aug 18, 2009

BuckleBoy said:
stefen said:

Just because he did not agree with the politics or the agenda of OBama, does not mean that he must give up his rights...although, that's next

Click to expand...

But it also doesn't mean that he has to bring a weapon to a presidential address just because he can.

Sure, he is within his rights. But if he'd stopped to think about the statement he was trying to make (be it revolution, gun control, or whatever), then he'd maybe have realized that he was making the opposite statement.

For folks who want to Keep their rights to bear arms, this is no way to act.

When people push the limits of their legal rights, those rights have a tendency get restricted.

-Buck

I only really disagree with one thing you said. "For folks who want to Keep their rights to bear arms, this is no way to act." The President doesn't get to change the constitution because he is scared of the populace. Nor does his party get to legislate away the second amendment. People who BREAK gun laws are dealt with by law enforcement. If the offence is serious enough, they lose their second amendment right to bear arms. You wouldn't want detecting banned just because one guy was out there digging up easements, would you? :wink:

John

mrs.oroblanco · Aug 18, 2009

You only need a gun to protect your life or someone else's life.

I cannot agree with you on that. It doesn't matter if we 'need' it or not - it's our right.

I take it that we shouldn't be exercising our rights only when 'proper'? (Proper being what someone else decides is proper?).

In my opinion - 'proper' is when I feel like it, because I can.

B

blurr · Aug 18, 2009

AU24K said:
I believe that the guy was trying to get arrested or "roughed up" by Obammy's henchmen possibly to initiate a Federal lawsuit for violation of his 2nd amendment rights.
Regardless of whether he is within his rights or not, his actions are counterproductive to his message. Just because you are allowed a certain activity, you must weigh that against the "big picture". I think the man acted a fool and has hurt his position and ideology. If you want to fight, choose your battles carefully. The word "discretion" comes to mind....
Scott

PS. Message to guy with gun: if you file a federal lawsuit and it goes before the Supreme Court, what cha think will be the result? Hint: Sotomayer.

As long as the supreme court stays the same, the second amendment is safe. Sotomayer did not shift the balance of the supreme court. The hippie she replaced never was a freind of the second amendment anyways. As for the guy with the gun, what did he do wrong

??

John